Are Liberals Getting Dumber or Just Give Up Pretending to Have Brains?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MistaGuitah
  • Start date Start date
YabbaDabbaDoo said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

An Essay on Nothing​

Sophia Gottfried meditates on the emptiness of non-existence.​

In philosophy there is a lot of emphasis on what exists. We call this ontology, which means, the study of being. What is less often examined is what does not exist.

It is understandable that we focus on what exists, as its effects are perhaps more visible. However, gaps or non-existence can also quite clearly have an impact on us in a number of ways. After all, death, often dreaded and feared, is merely the lack of existence in this world (unless you believe in ghosts). We are affected also by living people who are not there, objects that are not in our lives, and knowledge we never grasp.

Upon further contemplation, this seems quite odd and raises many questions. How can things that do not exist have such bearing upon our lives? Does nothing have a type of existence all of its own? And how do we start our inquiry into things we can’t interact with directly because they’re not there? When one opens a box, and exclaims “There is nothing inside it!”, is that different from a real emptiness or nothingness? Why is nothingness such a hard concept for philosophy to conceptualize?

Let us delve into our proposed box, and think inside it a little. When someone opens an empty box, they do not literally find it devoid of any sort of being at all, since there is still air, light, and possibly dust present. So the box is not truly empty. Rather, the word ‘empty’ here is used in conjunction with a prior assumption. Boxes were meant to hold things, not to just exist on their own. Inside they might have a present; an old family relic; a pizza; or maybe even another box. Since boxes have this purpose of containing things ascribed to them, there is always an expectation there will be something in a box. Therefore, this situation of nothingness arises from our expectations, or from our being accustomed. The same is true of statements such as “There is no one on this chair.” But if someone said, “There is no one on this blender”, they might get some odd looks. This is because a chair is understood as something that holds people, whereas a blender most likely not.

The same effect of expectation and corresponding absence arises with death. We do not often mourn people we only might have met; but we do mourn those we have known. This pain stems from expecting a presence and having none. Even people who have not experienced the presence of someone themselves can still feel their absence due to an expectation being confounded. Children who lose one or both of their parents early in life often feel that lack of being through the influence of the culturally usual idea of a family. Just as we have cultural notions about the box or chair, there is a standard idea of a nuclear family, containing two parents, and an absence can be noted even by those who have never known their parents.

This first type of nothingness I call ‘perceptive nothingness’. This nothingness is a negation of expectation: expecting something and being denied that expectation by reality. It is constructed by the individual human mind, frequently through comparison with a socially constructed concept.

Pure nothingness, on the other hand, does not contain anything at all: no air, no light, no dust. We cannot experience it with our senses, but we can conceive it with the mind. Possibly, this sort of absolute nothing might have existed before our universe sprang into being. Or can something not arise from nothing? In which case, pure nothing can never have existed.

If we can for a moment talk in terms of a place devoid of all being, this would contain nothing in its pure form. But that raises the question, Can a space contain nothing; or, if there is space, is that not a form of existence in itself?

This question brings to mind what’s so baffling about nothing: it cannot exist. If nothing existed, it would be something. So nothing, by definition, is not able to ‘be’.

Is absolute nothing possible, then? Perhaps not. Perhaps for example we need something to define nothing; and if there is something, then there is not absolutely nothing. What’s more, if there were truly nothing, it would be impossible to define it. The world would not be conscious of this nothingness. Only because there is a world filled with Being can we imagine a dull and empty one. Nothingness arises from Somethingness, then: without being to compare it to, nothingness has no existence. Once again, pure nothingness has shown itself to be negation.

A world where there is nothing is just an empty shell, you might reply; but the shell itself exists, is something. And even if there were no matter, arguably space could still exist, so could time; and these are not nothing.

Someday we may come face to face with pure space, that is a nothingness waiting to be filled. Possibly, when scientists find a way to safely pilot spaceships into black holes, or are able to create a pure vacuum, we will be forced to look straight into the void. But even if that really is nothing, by entering into that nothingness, humans will destroy it by filling it. Or perhaps we will be consumed by it and all traces left of our existence will be erased.

Death, the ultimate void for humans, makes people uneasy for obvious reasons: all that they are will be forever reduced to a blank space felt only by loved ones, and even that absence will be forgotten someday. However, let us not steer away from these questions about nothingness, even if they may take us to bleak places. When one looks a little closer at the big questions, even though it may seem contradictory, nothingness appears everywhere. And if we want to learn how something came from nothing, or if there ever was nothing, we can not shy away from looking into the scary void a little closer.

© Sophia Gottfried 2020
 
Bagel and Creamcheese said:

An Essay on Nothing​

Sophia Gottfried meditates on the emptiness of non-existence.​

In philosophy there is a lot of emphasis on what exists. We call this ontology, which means, the study of being. What is less often examined is what does not exist.

It is understandable that we focus on what exists, as its effects are perhaps more visible. However, gaps or non-existence can also quite clearly have an impact on us in a number of ways. After all, death, often dreaded and feared, is merely the lack of existence in this world (unless you believe in ghosts). We are affected also by living people who are not there, objects that are not in our lives, and knowledge we never grasp.

Upon further contemplation, this seems quite odd and raises many questions. How can things that do not exist have such bearing upon our lives? Does nothing have a type of existence all of its own? And how do we start our inquiry into things we can’t interact with directly because they’re not there? When one opens a box, and exclaims “There is nothing inside it!”, is that different from a real emptiness or nothingness? Why is nothingness such a hard concept for philosophy to conceptualize?

Let us delve into our proposed box, and think inside it a little. When someone opens an empty box, they do not literally find it devoid of any sort of being at all, since there is still air, light, and possibly dust present. So the box is not truly empty. Rather, the word ‘empty’ here is used in conjunction with a prior assumption. Boxes were meant to hold things, not to just exist on their own. Inside they might have a present; an old family relic; a pizza; or maybe even another box. Since boxes have this purpose of containing things ascribed to them, there is always an expectation there will be something in a box. Therefore, this situation of nothingness arises from our expectations, or from our being accustomed. The same is true of statements such as “There is no one on this chair.” But if someone said, “There is no one on this blender”, they might get some odd looks. This is because a chair is understood as something that holds people, whereas a blender most likely not.

The same effect of expectation and corresponding absence arises with death. We do not often mourn people we only might have met; but we do mourn those we have known. This pain stems from expecting a presence and having none. Even people who have not experienced the presence of someone themselves can still feel their absence due to an expectation being confounded. Children who lose one or both of their parents early in life often feel that lack of being through the influence of the culturally usual idea of a family. Just as we have cultural notions about the box or chair, there is a standard idea of a nuclear family, containing two parents, and an absence can be noted even by those who have never known their parents.

This first type of nothingness I call ‘perceptive nothingness’. This nothingness is a negation of expectation: expecting something and being denied that expectation by reality. It is constructed by the individual human mind, frequently through comparison with a socially constructed concept.

Pure nothingness, on the other hand, does not contain anything at all: no air, no light, no dust. We cannot experience it with our senses, but we can conceive it with the mind. Possibly, this sort of absolute nothing might have existed before our universe sprang into being. Or can something not arise from nothing? In which case, pure nothing can never have existed.

If we can for a moment talk in terms of a place devoid of all being, this would contain nothing in its pure form. But that raises the question, Can a space contain nothing; or, if there is space, is that not a form of existence in itself?

This question brings to mind what’s so baffling about nothing: it cannot exist. If nothing existed, it would be something. So nothing, by definition, is not able to ‘be’.

Is absolute nothing possible, then? Perhaps not. Perhaps for example we need something to define nothing; and if there is something, then there is not absolutely nothing. What’s more, if there were truly nothing, it would be impossible to define it. The world would not be conscious of this nothingness. Only because there is a world filled with Being can we imagine a dull and empty one. Nothingness arises from Somethingness, then: without being to compare it to, nothingness has no existence. Once again, pure nothingness has shown itself to be negation.

A world where there is nothing is just an empty shell, you might reply; but the shell itself exists, is something. And even if there were no matter, arguably space could still exist, so could time; and these are not nothing.

Someday we may come face to face with pure space, that is a nothingness waiting to be filled. Possibly, when scientists find a way to safely pilot spaceships into black holes, or are able to create a pure vacuum, we will be forced to look straight into the void. But even if that really is nothing, by entering into that nothingness, humans will destroy it by filling it. Or perhaps we will be consumed by it and all traces left of our existence will be erased.

Death, the ultimate void for humans, makes people uneasy for obvious reasons: all that they are will be forever reduced to a blank space felt only by loved ones, and even that absence will be forgotten someday. However, let us not steer away from these questions about nothingness, even if they may take us to bleak places. When one looks a little closer at the big questions, even though it may seem contradictory, nothingness appears everywhere. And if we want to learn how something came from nothing, or if there ever was nothing, we can not shy away from looking into the scary void a little closer.

© Sophia Gottfried 2020
Click to expand...
TOO FUCKING LONG AN DIDN'T FUCKING READ YOU COCKEHEAD.

Isn't this what YOU do to @MistaGuitah you POS low life.
 
Schrödinger’s Donnie said:
There is no Abrahamic god. There might be something else out there. But it ain’t Jebus.

Men and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Donald Trump will not become president again.

You’re a fucking retard. You sound like @ccn ‘s religious alter-ego.
Click to expand...
Clueless dickhead.

Read the old testament.....if you can..................you'll learn plenty and I do mean plenty.
 
THE LEFT DENY THIS INCLUDING ALL LEFT WING FACTCHECKERS

THE COMMUNIST PLAN

In 1912, a man named Israel Cohen (name “Cohen” is Jewish for priest) wrote a book on Communist tactics, titled “A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century.” An excerpt reads:

“We must realize that our Party’s most powerful weapon is RACIAL TENSION. By pounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the Whites, we can mould them to our program. [Link] The terms “colonialism” and “imperialism” must be featured in our propaganda. In America we will aim for subtle victory while inflaming the Negro minority against the Whites. We will endeavor to install in the Whites a guilt complex for exploiting the Negroes. [Link] We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, (Affirmative Action) in the professions and in the world of sport and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the Whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”

https://newswithviews.com/microaggressions-and-deconstructing-white-privilege/
 
MistaGuitah said:
Part 2

The thing is, these are just a few of the thousands of twisted, moronic principles of liberalism. There's no doubt that liberals hate intelligence. We haven't even brought up how much liberals hate decency and morality so much that they forcefully redefine it and replace it with their own arbitrarily invented, vague, moral concepts. Indeed, liberals harbor utter contempt for propriety, purity, and innocence - especially if it reflects Christianity in any way.

This blatant, forceful dumbing of intelligent kids is the educational design of the insidious liberal collective. Indeed, it's painfully obvious that liberals truly hate intelligence. They're as averse to intelligence as they are to heterosexual, alpha males with free speech and the right to bear arms. Therefore, their most hated, prime enemies are intelligent, heterosexual, alpha males and the women who are attracted to them.

Lastly, liberal hatred of intelligent people is so intense that they give up their eternal souls with alacrity. The fact is that liberals hate GOD and anyone who actually follows the bible so much that they all love satan. Since it's biblically impossible for a liberal to be Christian or a Christian to be liberal, the bible considers liberals the children of satan. Consider the stupidity of rejecting the benevolent GOD who gives eternal heaven as a free gift and choosing the most evil, murderous, vile, hateful bane of all humanity. The entire world knows satan is pure evil and no one really thinks he's actually good so to throw away any chance of salvation and choose to follow the very source of evil that hates mankind more than anything ever brought into existence is like the dumbest thing someone can ever do.

That's just one other painfully obvious example of how much liberals hate intelligence and how dumb they've become. The impossible challenge of this reality is finding a way to co-exist with liberals. You can't talk to them or reason with them. They will never, ever cooperate or compromise with anyone, and that's why they're a collective. You can't just ignore them and live your own life in peace because they're incessant invaders of privacy, independence, and total ruiners of happiness. They literally want to corrupt everything and ruin everything they touch. Thus, liberals are a three-faced threat to intelligent humanity:

1. Liberals have a proclivity for perpetual self-destruction, and when they inevitably bring themselves to ruin, they operate in sinister ways to steal human resources so they can start the process of self-destruction all over again.

2. Liberals are unhappy, hateful, ungrateful, debauched, corrupt, and shameful people by nature. Therefore, they have nothing but resentment, animosity, and rage whenever they see people across the street who are happy, productive, orderly, and successful. Because of their insidious nature and unbound hatefulness, they devise all kinds of ways to ruin people or convert them to their own so they can't be the only unhappy, wretched people on the planet.

3. Liberals generally share beta traits so they're inherently weak, cowardly, and incompetent (That's also why their confidence comes from being part of a collective). Therefore, they only prey on those weaker than themselves. They have no chance against the strong so, by nature of their inherent insidiousness, they collectively conspire to infiltrate and bring ruin from within. That's exactly what they've done in America.

Now, humanity is engaged in global war between intelligent individuals and an unintelligent mob. There is no chance for diplomacy, there is no possibility of dialog, and there's certainly no willingness to compromise. Liberals have literally waged war against intelligent individuals, and they're so desperate to make us fight that they constantly provoke us by targeting our children and inalienable rights. The world is in a dire situation right now and there's no possibility of resolution except for 2 outcomes: Either intelligent people separate completely from the liberal collective (100% separation because liberals are cancerous), or one conquers the other to dominate. Everyone with intelligence should seriously contemplate these things a because this is undoubtedly the current reality.
Click to expand...
THIS IS OUTSTANDING AND DEAD ON ACCURATE . Great info MistaGuitah (y)(y)
 
Schrödinger’s Donnie said:
There is no Abrahamic god. There might be something else out there. But it ain’t Jebus.

Men and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Donald Trump will not become president again.

You’re a fucking retard. You sound like @ccn ‘s religious alter-ego.
Click to expand...

Yea it’s wild when I read someone dismiss evolution because they think it means we evolved from monkeys.
I’m cool with people believing in creationism, but at least grasp the most basic concept of human evolution before deciding against it.
 
Cnnk94AXYAAAmlJ.jpg
 
MistaGuitah said:
Part 1

Scientists have found that gorillas have a 75-80 IQ. When you consider how saturated the entire internet has become with wretched, low-IQ, liberal babble. It's like watching part of the human race degenerate to a point that they can't compete with apes. The truth is liberals have indeed gotten exceedingly dumber and they've abandoned all effort to seem like they have any amount of intelligence at all. When humans reach the point where they reject intelligent thought and behavior, they're no longer human. Intelligence has always been what made humans superior to all creatures on the earth. However, liberals have become a bridge between intelligent humanity and unintelligent, caustic creatures. In fact, if you've seen liberal celebrations then you're quite familiar with the meaning of "freakshow." So it's not just that they deviated from human intelligence but also begun to take on bizarre physical appearances. They even use surgical mutilation to outwardly reflect and showcase their depraved nature.

It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with a liberal. They're not even capable of having a real conversation. They've actually become like parrots that echo things they've heard from liberal media and the liberal activists who indoctrinated (and also groomed) them. Intelligent people recognize the conversation between chatty parrots as senseless babble, and that's why liberals have always avoided conversation because it easily exposes their pathetic logic and inability to reason. However, liberals repeat their narratives and mantras with great conviction. It's easy to stump liberals with very simple questions about their logic, but even if they appear to finally realize how dumb they've been since they were born, they have no regard for truth and reason, so they double-down on idiocy. In their effort to double-down, and prolonged effort to prove their conviction of it, they actually become the idiots they doubled-down to be.

The tragic result of the Collective's progressive self-dumbing is that conversation is no longer the conduit for better relations and cooperation in society. In fact, open dialog was once the greatest tool of international diplomacy, but like everything else liberals touch, they ruined diplomacy also. Now the attempt to converse is perceived as an attack or aggression. They even perceive a slight gestures or expressions showing openness to dialog as "micro-aggressions." Liberals as a collective have effectively shut down dialog with the rest of the world.

Yet, despite the blind cohesion of their collective, there's only 1 requirement for membership and induction as a collective member, and that's the dereliction of human intelligence. If you're willing to become dumb, blind, and eat whatever is thrown on your plate, the liberal collective will endow you with a ridiculous sense of entitlement, a communist manifesto ratified with gender roles and doctrine of DEI (Diversity/Equity/Inclusion), and multiple automatic voter registrations in every state. Promotion comes easily as the only requirement for promotion is loudly proclaiming lunacy. Recognition and infamy is bestowed to the sickest, most vulgar, and most depraved, most perverted constituents of the collective. Clones who've acquired many follower-clones are given a free, blue check-mark as one of the greatest accolades imparted to the most well-known dummies on the planet.

Humanity now finds itself in bizarre quandary where human intelligence vs utter stupidity is a mortal choice. Open dialog is no longer the vehicle for diplomacy. In fact, because despotism and communism has no need for diplomacy, the entire liberal collective has simply shut down any possibility of dialog. Not only that, they've launched a campaign of audacious infringement on inalienable rights for the purpose of repressing non-collective people from conversing amongst themselves.

If there is any stupid question left about liberals' war on intelligence, then abundant proof is evident in education. The education system operates on the concept of 'equity,' not equality, so higher-performing, better-behaving students (statistically mostly Asians and Whites) are oppressed so that they cannot outperform or achieve more than low performing, worst behaved students. That's not even half of it because one of the most egregious aspects of social equity is that the government and education system literally steal from good students, takes away their academic resources and support, and re-appropriates it to whoever the liberal collective designates as 'disadvantaged' or 'minority' status.

A quick glimpse of the Collective’s woke doctrine clearly shows how unintelligent they are:

* They teach children from birth to believe boys can be girls and that girls can be boys, or that there's no such thing as male and female. In fact, they teach that evil villains fabricated the notion of male and female genders to subconsciously oppress people.

* They've changed the rules of science and biology so that there's great prejudice against any research that may suggest contrary to Woke principles (white people are inherently evil, heterosexuals are ascetic, males are "toxic," abortion is not killing innocent babies inside and outside of the womb and that it's an infringement of "women's rights" to expect them to birth and raise the human products of their sexual escapades, etc.)

* They teach that GOD doesn't exist and that the entire universe just created itself, detonated itself, and created an infinite physical reality based on very complex laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
* That humans evolved from monkeys even though monkeys existed before mankind but still haven't developed human intelligence, ability to create technology, or communicate verbally in a given language.
* That humans are their own gods, even though they didn't create themselves and cannot escape the inevitability of death or aging.

* They operate on the notion that 'the oppressed' can only be freed from oppression by greater, more forceful oppression.

* They recklessly spend money as if it somehow grows straight out of the butts of rich people in endless supply while simultaneously mounting up ludicrous amounts of debt.
Click to expand...
TD;DR
 
MistaGuitah said:
Part 2

The thing is, these are just a few of the thousands of twisted, moronic principles of liberalism. There's no doubt that liberals hate intelligence. We haven't even brought up how much liberals hate decency and morality so much that they forcefully redefine it and replace it with their own arbitrarily invented, vague, moral concepts. Indeed, liberals harbor utter contempt for propriety, purity, and innocence - especially if it reflects Christianity in any way.

This blatant, forceful dumbing of intelligent kids is the educational design of the insidious liberal collective. Indeed, it's painfully obvious that liberals truly hate intelligence. They're as averse to intelligence as they are to heterosexual, alpha males with free speech and the right to bear arms. Therefore, their most hated, prime enemies are intelligent, heterosexual, alpha males and the women who are attracted to them.

Lastly, liberal hatred of intelligent people is so intense that they give up their eternal souls with alacrity. The fact is that liberals hate GOD and anyone who actually follows the bible so much that they all love satan. Since it's biblically impossible for a liberal to be Christian or a Christian to be liberal, the bible considers liberals the children of satan. Consider the stupidity of rejecting the benevolent GOD who gives eternal heaven as a free gift and choosing the most evil, murderous, vile, hateful bane of all humanity. The entire world knows satan is pure evil and no one really thinks he's actually good so to throw away any chance of salvation and choose to follow the very source of evil that hates mankind more than anything ever brought into existence is like the dumbest thing someone can ever do.

That's just one other painfully obvious example of how much liberals hate intelligence and how dumb they've become. The impossible challenge of this reality is finding a way to co-exist with liberals. You can't talk to them or reason with them. They will never, ever cooperate or compromise with anyone, and that's why they're a collective. You can't just ignore them and live your own life in peace because they're incessant invaders of privacy, independence, and total ruiners of happiness. They literally want to corrupt everything and ruin everything they touch. Thus, liberals are a three-faced threat to intelligent humanity:

1. Liberals have a proclivity for perpetual self-destruction, and when they inevitably bring themselves to ruin, they operate in sinister ways to steal human resources so they can start the process of self-destruction all over again.

2. Liberals are unhappy, hateful, ungrateful, debauched, corrupt, and shameful people by nature. Therefore, they have nothing but resentment, animosity, and rage whenever they see people across the street who are happy, productive, orderly, and successful. Because of their insidious nature and unbound hatefulness, they devise all kinds of ways to ruin people or convert them to their own so they can't be the only unhappy, wretched people on the planet.

3. Liberals generally share beta traits so they're inherently weak, cowardly, and incompetent (That's also why their confidence comes from being part of a collective). Therefore, they only prey on those weaker than themselves. They have no chance against the strong so, by nature of their inherent insidiousness, they collectively conspire to infiltrate and bring ruin from within. That's exactly what they've done in America.

Now, humanity is engaged in global war between intelligent individuals and an unintelligent mob. There is no chance for diplomacy, there is no possibility of dialog, and there's certainly no willingness to compromise. Liberals have literally waged war against intelligent individuals, and they're so desperate to make us fight that they constantly provoke us by targeting our children and inalienable rights. The world is in a dire situation right now and there's no possibility of resolution except for 2 outcomes: Either intelligent people separate completely from the liberal collective (100% separation because liberals are cancerous), or one conquers the other to dominate. Everyone with intelligence should seriously contemplate these things a because this is undoubtedly the current reality.
Click to expand...
TD;DR

Such long rambling bullshit I wasn't allowed to quote both posts at the same time. :rolleyes:
 
ccn said:
THE LEFT DENY THIS INCLUDING ALL LEFT WING FACTCHECKERS

THE COMMUNIST PLAN

In 1912, a man named Israel Cohen (name “Cohen” is Jewish for priest) wrote a book on Communist tactics, titled “A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century.” An excerpt reads:

“We must realize that our Party’s most powerful weapon is RACIAL TENSION. By pounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the Whites, we can mould them to our program. [Link] The terms “colonialism” and “imperialism” must be featured in our propaganda. In America we will aim for subtle victory while inflaming the Negro minority against the Whites. We will endeavor to install in the Whites a guilt complex for exploiting the Negroes. [Link] We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, (Affirmative Action) in the professions and in the world of sport and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the Whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”

https://newswithviews.com/microaggressions-and-deconstructing-white-privilege/
Click to expand...
Join MG. TD;DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top